News   Jan 15, 2025
Three Cranes Up at Rushden Station by Danforth GO
 364     0 
News   Jan 15, 2025
Flemingdon Park Sees 39-Storey Tower-in-the-Park Infill Proposal
 756     1 
News   Jan 15, 2025
News Roundup for January 15, 2025
 492     0 

Switzerland Minarets Laws

TrickyRicky said:
Roy G Biv, I agree that the law is dumb. As someone, as I mentioned, who technically could have voted on the issue if I cared to, I'm curious to ask this question. The Swiss have open free votes on everything. In a similar system with an open free vote how do you think similar legislation would fair in other western nations?
Click to expand...

I think it would have passed in France, Germany, and Italy.

kEiThZ said:
What I find bizarre in all this, is that minarets have become such a potent symbol? How?
Click to expand...

I had no clue either....
 
Tewder said:
Unlike the Swiss or French we ask very little by way of accommodations of newcomers
Click to expand...
There is one requirement I would like to make, and that is that all potential immigrants must pass an English or French spoken and written language exam before being accepted. Australia does this, and they have a much better record of integrating immigrants. However, I appreciate that I'm OT here.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Check out the shape, it's like the Washington Monument, all about potency.
Click to expand...

So this whole thing is about penis-envy?

There is one requirement I would like to make, and that is that all potential immigrants must pass an English or French spoken and written language exam before being accepted.
Click to expand...

I used to oppose this in my more idealistic days... but now I would support it.
 
Admiral Beez said:
There is one requirement I would like to make, and that is that all potential immigrants must pass an English or French spoken and written language exam before being accepted. Australia does this, and they have a much better record of integrating immigrants. However, I appreciate that I'm OT here.
Click to expand...

You have to write TOEFL (with a certain minimum score) or its French equivalent to get in to Canada. The requirement is waived for family class migrants. What needs to be looked at is applying more of the standards that we have for independent and professional migrants to the family class. Right now the bar is very high for the former and quite low for the latter.
 
Roy G Biv said:
Sorry, but you cannot claim that the context is "not the issue". The fact that Swiss are applying a law towards only one group of people demonstrates legislative discrimination.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. On the contrary I am appealing to context here, otherwise all kinds of laws and bilaws governing society would be considered discriminatory in one way or another: It is language discrimination that anglophones cannot put up a sign in English in Quebec. It is religious discrimination that only catholic schools in Ontario receive tax funding. It is ethnic discrimination in Canada that natives do not pay taxes. It is age discrimination in Ontario that people cannot legally drink alcohol under the age of 19. It is discrimination if I live in a protected 'heritage' zone and cannot build a minaret on a listed Victorian brownstone, etc etc. The context is indeed important, it is what informs the understanding of the perceived greater benefit to 'all' of the statute in question. Does this mean it'll be perceived as a benefit by every single individual? No, but we are not dealing with a constitutional issue of fundamental rights. A little flexibility, or 'context' is required.

Roy, as already stated I would agree with you on this issue whole-heartedly if this were a ban on mosques or the worship of Islam, or if it were clear that the architectural details of other non-traditional religions were to somehow be exempt from this law. These conditions would trump others for me, no question, but I am simply not jumping to this conclusion based on the hyperbole presented thus far by the polarized extremes of the argument.


Roy G Biv said:
Neutral: Canada passes a bill barring the sale of red cars.
Bad: Canada passes a bill barring the sale of red cars to black people.

Now, remaining consistent with your current argument, convince me that the above scenario is a-ok.
Click to expand...

... but the scenarios are not the same. As you yourself say we have to look at context. I simply cannot think of a context where it makes sense in society to deny black people red cars. Again, the context of this issue in Switzerland is heritage preservation. This is an arguable context, and one we see all the time in the protection of traditional heritage or culture, and especially with architecture or heritage zones. The perceived greater good in this case being the protection of national heritage that presumably all will appreciate, including muslim citizens and immigrants.


Roy G Biv said:
Spoken like one in the majority. You seem to have completely ignored that I purposely avoided the suggestion that the moderates go full-radical. I even specifically mentioned that no one should be taking to the streets with AK-47's, but they will and should feel slighted.
Click to expand...

Be careful. We are all a minority in one context or another. To suggest otherwise is to be a little too willing to paint with broad strokes or fall prey to blanket generalizations. I don't know where your lines of 'full' or 'partial' radical fall, with or without AK47s but even the coy suggestion of them that you've made more than once is belligerent and nonconstructive, quite frankly.

Roy G Biv said:
It is completely naive to suggest they remain emotionally neutral to this transgression. You're sitting here arguing that a reasonable muslim should simply shrug this off, and not even be slightly put-off by it all, and that if it annoys them, they were Jihadists to begin with.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. It is your suggestion that moderate muslims be inflamed by this and 'radicalize' that is Jihadist hyperbole. Fortunately I do believe that moderate muslims will be moderate on this too, viewing minarets as a trifling concession to make in architecture in their new homeland.

Roy G Biv said:
ps. I don't think you should lecture me on what it takes to be a moderate, because I've discussed this issue with maybe 20 people from varying political backgrounds, and all agreed that it was stupid. You are the only person who has come out supporting it. And from previous discussions where you labelled Canada as a "nanny-state", my guess is that you are far from moderate.
Click to expand...

I've spoken with 21 people from varying political backgrounds who disagree so there!:rolleyes:

As for who is or who is not 'moderate', your viewpoint is the very definition of fundamentalist, eschewing any sense of reasonable compromise or sensitivity to context. At the end of the day, nobody has the right to an architectural detail in all contexts. That the detail in question happens to be identified with some muslim cultures is the sort of blurring of an issue that extremists use to force wedge issues into every single discussion. The simple reality is that there is far more than a fine line between this and the religious persecution you claim it to be.
 
It's only about architecture!

SVP%20anti-minaret%20poster.jpg
[/IMG]
 
kEiThZ said:
You have to write TOEFL (with a certain minimum score) or its French equivalent to get in to Canada. The requirement is waived for family class migrants.
Click to expand...
Family class immigrants should be canceled entirely except for your children and spouse. If you want to see your Grandparents, parents or family back home, then buy yourself a plane ticket. Another smart move made by Australia was to eliminate extended family class immigration.
 
Tewder said:
I would agree with you on this issue whole-heartedly if this were a ban on mosques or the worship of Islam, or if it were clear that the architectural details of other non-traditional religions were to somehow be exempt from this law.
Click to expand...

This is willfull naivety. Don't you realize that this is how bigots operate in this day and age? They know that an outright ban on mosques or Islam won't fly, so they very craftily come up with proxies that are obstensibly "neutral"-- even though everyone knows who the real underlying target is.

In Weimar Germany, attacks on bankers and international finance were understood to be targeting Jews. And in the U.S., politicians who campaign against "welfare queens" are understood to be making a not-so-subtle appeal to those who think Blacks are getting more than their fair share.
 
Roy G Biv said:
Sorry, but you cannot claim that the context is "not the issue". The fact that Swiss are applying a law towards only one group of people demonstrates legislative discrimination.

Neutral: Canada passes a bill barring the sale of red cars.
Bad: Canada passes a bill barring the sale of red cars to black people.
Click to expand...
But aren't the Swiss technically banning anyone from putting up a minaret? If so your comparison doesn't work, at least in theory if not in practice.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top